Deception = Rape?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Stories where you would consent anyway are different than victims' stories where they would not have consented absent the manipulation. They are both manipulations but the extent of psychological trauma you would expect to be different on average.

 

[Malintent]

Stories where you would consent anyway are different than victims' stories where they would not have consented absent the manipulation. They are both manipulations but the extent of psychological trauma you would expect to be different on average.

OK, good point, but "manipulation" is not physical in this case. Is the argument that rape can occur in cases where no physical threat of any kind was made... "just" deception?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Manipulation/deception often has logical physical consequences as in this case.

Person A has a set of rational choices when making decisions = {c1, c2, c3, ..., cN}
When Person B deceives Person A, they then think there are a different set rational of choices = {d1, d2, d3, ..., dM}

It is most often the case that Person B is looking for some difference in physical outcomes by Person A, such as a dj | dj != ci where i in 1..N

In a theoretical sense, when one is physically restrained or forced, the same types of choices change as well. This is why some moral philosophers refer to lying as an assault.

 

[Playball40]

Do I need to disclose any surgeries I've had before sex?

If you dye your hair blue, I suppose there is no real deception because nobody would think its your real hair colour. If you dye out the grey in your hair to look younger, that's a lie.

How would you feel if you later discovered that you'd had sex with a post-op transexual? Would you feel violated?

How about if you had sex with an identical twin under the faulty perception that it was the other twin?

Is refusing to pay a prostitute after the act a rape, or just a breach of contract?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Do I need to disclose any surgeries I've had before sex?

If you've had a surgery to insert razor blades inside of your vagina then yes, you most certainly do!

 

[Bronzeage]

Personally, I would call most of these situations fraud and not rape. If there is no physical violence, it doesn't seem like rape to me at all.

It is the threat of physical violence that constitutes the crime. A woman may passively submit and not be injured because she fears injury or death, if she resists. Many women have been raped in their own bed, by an intruder who threatened to kill her family if she made a sound.


If there is a case to be made for fraud, what is the next step? How do we legislate this new category of fraud? What constitutes this fraud? Can the victim claim punitive damages? How are damages determined?

It's a ridiculous premise, based on the idea that adults aren't responsible enough to make decisions in their own best interest.

In this day and age, everyone can expect to have sex with at least one person, which they will regret at a later time. They may have sex with this person for years, and regret it every time. Life is full of choices which yield disappointing results.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, that would be somebody having sex with you when you didn't consent to having sex with that person. Different from simply deceiving them.

This exact thing did happen to me when I was 17. The identical twin of the guy I was dating came into my apartment and crawled into my bed for sex. At the time, I even thought something was *off* but put it down to me being woken from a sound sleep.

The next morning, all hell broke loose with the twin's girlfriend AND the guy I was dating blaming me as much as they blamed the twin... after all, I'd *willingly* slept with him.

No.

I was raped by deception.

Exactly the sort of thing I was referring to about pretending to be a specific person being rape. I have no problem at all calling what happened to you rape and would have no problem voting "guilty" if I were on a jury. Sounds like you had plenty of evidence of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

More so in the past than now, but if a closeted, actively gay man gets married to a woman for the purpose of having kids and a family and not for the sex or romantic love, is this a form of rape? Or is it heroic?

I don't think I would call that rape but I certainly would call it grounds for an annulment if she wants it.

 

[Lion IRC]

The more casualized sexual activity becomes and more we de-institutionalize monogamy, the more difficult it becomes to answer questions raised in the Op.

The specifically sexual elements of rape are almost irrelevant now.

And the absence of consent in rape is really no different to the absence of consent in any other type of physical or verbal 'assault'.

It's not about gender versus gender, or male power, or respect for women, it's simply a question of witholding or exercising informed consent. So why disambiguate sexual violence or deception as opposed to any other type of violence/deception?

You tricked me into giving you $10.
You tricked me into having sexual intercourse.
Arguably, you have tangibly lost more if someone scams you for $10

 

[ZiprHead]

You tricked me into giving you $10.
You tricked me into having sexual intercourse.
Arguably, you have tangibly lost more if someone scams you for $10

How about I butt rape you and give you ten dollars afterwards. Are we even then?

 

[RVonse]

If there is a case to be made for fraud, what is the next step? How do we legislate this new category of fraud? What constitutes this fraud? Can the victim claim punitive damages? How are damages determined?

I'm not a lawyer but my best guess it that this would be resolved as a civil dispute of tort law regards to wrong identity and fraud. And yes, with a monetary action for the victim on the civil side. And jail time on the criminal side to answer for the fraud.

Though it isn't really a rape, that would not prevent justice from taking place.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The more casualized sexual activity becomes and more we de-institutionalize monogamy, the more difficult it becomes to answer questions raised in the Op.

The specifically sexual elements of rape are almost irrelevant now.

And the absence of consent in rape is really no different to the absence of consent in any other type of physical or verbal 'assault'.

It's not about gender versus gender, or male power, or respect for women, it's simply a question of witholding or exercising informed consent. So why disambiguate sexual violence or deception as opposed to any other type of violence/deception?

You tricked me into giving you $10.
You tricked me into having sexual intercourse.
Arguably, you have tangibly lost more if someone scams you for $10

This is why Yehovallah commanded that there be a virgin dowry.

 

[Derec]

Oh ffs, will you please stop relying on MRA blog sources for information on the Amherst case and read the reports from credible sources?

And what do you consider "reliable sources"? Radical feminist blogs?
Could you provide some links as to what you consider "reliable sources"?

The male student was expelled for forcing a female student to continue fellating him when she tried to stop.

Even if she alleged that (and she made her allegations long after the supposed facts) there is no evidence that happened. Otherwise he'd have been charged with actual rape and not just expelled by the kangaroo college tribunal. And the messages the accuser sent and which the accused was not allowed to use as exculpatory evidence made that scenario's likelihood infinitesimal.

The moment he used force was the moment his transgression went from drunk sex to rape,

You are assuming that actually happened. Based on what evidence? The evidence of her text messages paints a very different picture:

“Ohmygod I jus did something so fuckig stupid,” Jones said in her texts. “Fucked [John Doe]…FUCK.” She said her “official story” would be that she took care of Doe after he threw up on himself, but also expressed fear that her roommate (Doe’s then-girlfriend) would be angry with her, as “it’s pretty obvi I wasn’t an innocent bystander.”

Amherst’s Response To A Rape Lawsuit Is Stunning
But to people like you, women never lie about rape and thus any accuser must be believed.

from a moderate violation of the CoC that would have gotten him something between a slap on the wrist and probation, to an egregious violation that got him expelled.

Note that he was drunker than she was. If anything, she raped him. And yet, he still got expelled. Because under current "rape culture" climate at colleges and universities, men are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and often not even then. Just ask Kristen Gillibrand.

 

[Arctish]

And what do you consider "reliable sources"? Radical feminist blogs?
Could you provide some links as to what you consider "reliable sources"?

The male student was expelled for forcing a female student to continue fellating him when she tried to stop.

Even if she alleged that (and she made her allegations long after the supposed facts) there is no evidence that happened. Otherwise he'd have been charged with actual rape and not just expelled by the kangaroo college tribunal. And the messages the accuser sent and which the accused was not allowed to use as exculpatory evidence made that scenario's likelihood infinitesimal.

The moment he used force was the moment his transgression went from drunk sex to rape,

You are assuming that actually happened. Based on what evidence? The evidence of her text messages paints a very different picture:

“Ohmygod I jus did something so fuckig stupid,” Jones said in her texts. “Fucked [John Doe]…FUCK.” She said her “official story” would be that she took care of Doe after he threw up on himself, but also expressed fear that her roommate (Doe’s then-girlfriend) would be angry with her, as “it’s pretty obvi I wasn’t an innocent bystander.”

Amherst’s Response To A Rape Lawsuit Is Stunning
But to people like you, women never lie about rape and thus any accuser must be believed.

from a moderate violation of the CoC that would have gotten him something between a slap on the wrist and probation, to an egregious violation that got him expelled.

Note that he was drunker than she was. If anything, she raped him. And yet, he still got expelled. Because under current "rape culture" climate at colleges and universities, men are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and often not even then. Just ask Kristen Gillibrand.

You and I have discussed this case at least 6 times already. I have provided links to news storied from local papers, news organizations like CNN, statements from Amherst College, and linked to the Amherst Code of Conduct. I have quoted, highlighted, and shown you the relevant sections over and over again. And I have given you the benefit of the doubt every time you misreported the circumstances of the student's expulsion. But no more.

You are telling lies, Derec, and I am convinced you damn well know it.

Both the male student and the female student were held accountable for violating the rules they broke. The difference in the outcomes was due to disciplinary board's finding that the male student committed a more serious violation - a forcible sex offense - in addition to the rules violation they both committed regarding having sex with an incapacitated student. Your failure to mention that part is a lie of omission and from now on that's what I'm going to call it.

Please stop lying about the Amherst case.

 

[Bronzeage]

If there is a case to be made for fraud, what is the next step? How do we legislate this new category of fraud? What constitutes this fraud? Can the victim claim punitive damages? How are damages determined?

I'm not a lawyer but my best guess it that this would be resolved as a civil dispute of tort law regards to wrong identity and fraud. And yes, with a monetary action for the victim on the civil side. And jail time on the criminal side to answer for the fraud.

Though it isn't really a rape, that would not prevent justice from taking place.

The questions remain unanswered. A man has consensual sex with a woman, who later realizes this man has been less than truthful, and had all been known, she would not have consented and sex would not have occurred. This is a matter of fact and no one disputes this part.

Is the woman damaged? If a drink is spilled on a table cloth, the damages are either a cleaning bill, or cost of replacement. The cloth is either restored to original condition, or the owner's circumstances are restored to original condition.

There is no way to restore her to her previous state of not having sex with this man, so what standard is used to establish the damage?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You and I have discussed this case at least 6 times already. I have provided links to news storied from local papers, news organizations like CNN, statements from Amherst College, and linked to the Amherst Code of Conduct. I have quoted, highlighted, and shown you the relevant sections over and over again. And I have given you the benefit of the doubt every time you misreported the circumstances of the student's expulsion. But no more.

You are telling lies, Derec, and I am convinced you damn well know it.

Both the male student and the female student were held accountable for violating the rules they broke. The difference in the outcomes was due to disciplinary board's finding that the male student committed a more serious violation - a forcible sex offense - in addition to the rules violation they both committed regarding having sex with an incapacitated student. Your failure to mention that part is a lie of omission and from now on that's what I'm going to call it.

Please stop lying about the Amherst case.

The problem is you are taking the conclusions of the kangaroo court as the word of god.

 

[Arctish]

You and I have discussed this case at least 6 times already. I have provided links to news storied from local papers, news organizations like CNN, statements from Amherst College, and linked to the Amherst Code of Conduct. I have quoted, highlighted, and shown you the relevant sections over and over again. And I have given you the benefit of the doubt every time you misreported the circumstances of the student's expulsion. But no more.

You are telling lies, Derec, and I am convinced you damn well know it.

Both the male student and the female student were held accountable for violating the rules they broke. The difference in the outcomes was due to disciplinary board's finding that the male student committed a more serious violation - a forcible sex offense - in addition to the rules violation they both committed regarding having sex with an incapacitated student. Your failure to mention that part is a lie of omission and from now on that's what I'm going to call it.

Please stop lying about the Amherst case.

The problem is you are taking the conclusions of the kangaroo court as the word of god.

No, Loren.

The problem is that Derec is lying about the reason the male student was expelled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is you are taking the conclusions of the kangaroo court as the word of god.

No, Loren.

The problem is that Derec is lying about the reason the male student was expelled.

While I certainly don't trust him on such issues I don't think he's lying in this case.

 

[ronburgundy]

It is rape when person A has sex with Person B without B's consent to have sex with Person A. The means by which the rape is achieved does not alter the fact of the rape. The means is relevant as to the possible consequences for the rape.

But people are not their names. People are a collection of specific traits. So, that means that anyone who has sex with someone and does not have every single trait that they lead others to believe they have, has raped the person.

Telling a woman that knows nothing about Keven Costner other than that he is rich and famous, is just an indirect way of pretending one is rich and famous. It is morally far more similar to a woman lying about her age and wearing spanks and push up bras than it to Ravensky's situation where a brother impersonated a specific man she knew intimately and had a relationship with.

IOW, there is a chasm of moral difference between telling some woman who's never met Costner that you are him, than somehow convincing Costner's wife that you are him in a darkened room.

 

[repoman]

It is rape when person A has sex with Person B without B's consent to have sex with Person A. The means by which the rape is achieved does not alter the fact of the rape. The means is relevant as to the possible consequences for the rape.

But people are not their names. People are a collection of specific traits. So, that means that anyone who has sex with someone and does not have every single trait that they lead others to believe they have, has raped the person.

Telling a woman that knows nothing about Keven Costner other than that he is rich and famous, is just an indirect way of pretending one is rich and famous. It is morally far more similar to a woman lying about her age and wearing spanks and push up bras than it to Ravensky's situation where a brother impersonated a specific man she knew intimately and had a relationship with.

IOW, there is a chasm of moral difference between telling some woman who's never met Costner that you are him, than somehow convincing Costner's wife that you are him in a darkened room.

Need some good old war of the sexes comedy from Chris Rock. Cool to the hear the manly rumble of agreement to some of his points: